TrustInMusic wrote:As a logic nerd who just got off of class doing polyadic predicate calculus with identity symbolizations exercises, I thoroughly enjoyed the logic discussion above. Quantifier negation for the win.

As an idiot, I understood every third word.

Every discipline needs its share of pedantic vocabulary.

ohpobrecito wrote:Booooooooooring

Indeed

...where every word is at home,Taking its place to support the others,The word neither diffident nor ostentatious,An easy commerce of the old a new,The common word exact, without vulgarity,The formal word precise, but not pedantic,The complete consort dancing together.

MacB wrote:Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."

These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."

FINE. Apparently it's a good thing I didn't take the lsat drunk at 1am.

To be fair, I thinkNot all are: SomeAll are not: None

So, I see the difference

Hah, I'm sorry if I'm bringing back any LSAT nightmares. But we're all done with it forever anyway, right?

"Not all are" doesn't imply "some"; for if none were--if there were not some that were--it would be correct to say "not all are."

jselson wrote:These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."

FINE. Apparently it's a good thing I didn't take the lsat drunk at 1am.

To be fair, I thinkNot all are: SomeAll are not: None

So, I see the difference

Hah, I'm sorry if I'm bringing back any LSAT nightmares. But we're all done with it forever anyway, right?

"Not all are" doesn't imply "some"; for if none were--if there were not some that were--it would be correct to say "not all are."

"Not all are" and "All are not" are both just negating "All are." Both "None are" and "Some are" negate "All are," so therefore either could be implied in "Not all are" and "All are not." That's it.

LexLeon wrote:Hah, I'm sorry if I'm bringing back any LSAT nightmares. But we're all done with it forever anyway, right?

Some of us liked it so much that now we make a living off of it.

jselson wrote:"Not all are" and "All are not" are both just negating "All are." Both "None are" and "Some are" negate "All are," so therefore either could be implied in "Not all are" and "All are not." That's it.

"Not all are" and "All are not" are vastly different statements and definitely do not mean the same thing.

jselson wrote:"Not all are" and "All are not" are both just negating "All are." Both "None are" and "Some are" negate "All are," so therefore either could be implied in "Not all are" and "All are not." That's it.

Disagree; "Not all are" is the negation of "All are" and it means "At least some are not," not "some are."

"All are not" is more restrictive.

If I imagine I'm picking 4 things and each thing is either A or B:

All are A's: AAAA is only choiceNot all are A's: BBBB would work, but so would BBBA, BBAA, BAAA.Some are A's: BBBB does NOT work, but BBBA, BBAA, BAAA still work. AAAA DOES work.All are not A's: BBBB is only choice

jselson wrote:"Not all are" and "All are not" are both just negating "All are." Both "None are" and "Some are" negate "All are," so therefore either could be implied in "Not all are" and "All are not." That's it.

Disagree; "Not all are" is the negation of "All are" and it means "At least some are not," not "some are."

"All are not" is more restrictive.

If I imagine I'm picking 4 things and each thing is either A or B:

All are A's: AAAA is only choiceNot all are A's: BBBB would work, but so would BBBA, BBAA, BAAA.Some are A's: BBBB does NOT work, but BBBA, BBAA, BAAA still work. AAAA DOES work.All are not A's: BBBB is only choice

I think we should do some more LSAT prep. I'm contractually obligated not to participate in the LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum, but you guys don't count because you're unlikely to want to take the LSAT again.

jselson wrote:"Not all are" and "All are not" are both just negating "All are." Both "None are" and "Some are" negate "All are," so therefore either could be implied in "Not all are" and "All are not." That's it.

jselson wrote:"Not all are" and "All are not" are both just negating "All are." Both "None are" and "Some are" negate "All are," so therefore either could be implied in "Not all are" and "All are not." That's it.

I think we should do some more LSAT prep. I'm contractually obligated not to participate in the LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum, but you guys don't count because you're unlikely to want to take the LSAT again.

Haha if only doing something productive and worthwhile just required you to take a series of logic-based tests. The world of A's and B's and not signs is a lot easier to understand than the real world.

jselson wrote:"Not all are" and "All are not" are both just negating "All are." Both "None are" and "Some are" negate "All are," so therefore either could be implied in "Not all are" and "All are not." That's it.

Shut... the fuck up. I'm serious. Shut up.

Whoa, chill out, I'm not posting about it again.

I'm sorry brahj, that was way too harsh. My bad, J. Just didn't want to go back down that road, regardless of who is right!!

domino wrote:Haha if only doing something productive and worthwhile just required you to take a series of logic-based tests. The world of A's and B's and not signs is a lot easier to understand than the real world.